P. M. No. 22/ 1962
AUSTRALIA AND WEST NEW GUINEA
There are plenty of words in Mr. Calwell's statement, but not much common sense or, for that matter, understanding of the facts. I will deal briefly with his central proposition, the
" key note" so to speak, around which the whole of his very long
statement turns. It is that " if Indonesia seeks Lo usa force
to create a potential threat to Australia's security, then I say,
with all due regard to the gravity of the situation, that the
threat must be faced".
What does this mean?
If it means that Australia should be ready and willing
to protect its own territories, i. e. Australian New CG'in: oa and
Papua, the answer is that I said so in plain terms in
statement of Government policy on January 12th a state. cent
which stands. If his statement means that an Australian gcvernment
should convey in relevant quarters its views against agr. cession
and in favour of self-determination, the aswer is that rcmy own
Government has done so on vjry many occasions by personal contact
and through diplomatic channels, over the last 12 months and
indeed long before that. This applies not only to the Netherlands
and Indonesia but also to the United Kingdom and the U. S. A. with
whom we have had very frequent exchanges. ie have also maintained
close contact with the Secretariat of the United Nations. It
would not be proper for me to state the attitude of either the
government of the United Kingdom or the administration of the
U. S. A. But they are most familiar with our desire that every
possible pressure should be exercised to deter the use of force.
If Mr. Calwell's statement means that, without any
regard to what might be the attitude or action of these great
powers, Australia should, in the event of armed Indonesian
aggression against Dutch Now Guinea, declare war against
Indonesia, it is clearly crazy and irresponsible.
For it is the inoscapable fact that, though we have
throughout recognised Dutch sovereignty in West New Guinea, every
nation in Asia supports the Indonesian claim.
Mr. Calwoll's vaguely bellicose attitudes do nothing but
harm. No nation has more to gain by peace and the peaceful and
just settlomant of disputes in and around South East Asia than
Australia. No nation has given clearer evidence of its attachment
to the principle that under-developed peoples should have, after
adequate and helpful preparation, the choice of their own future.
No country has done more in an endeavour to secure a persuasion of
Indonesia against the use of force.
Whatever the result may be and we do not despair of a
peaceful and just solution Mr. Calwell appears determined to
create an atmosphere which would make it difficult in future to
live in a state of harmony with our neighbours.
To call our policy and actions " appeasement" is to
trifle with the facts and to gamble with the future of our
country.
CANBERRA
llth February, 1962.